Editorial: A need for nuclear energy

Wednesday

Feb 24, 2010 at 12:01 AMFeb 24, 2010 at 4:22 AM

The national debate on nuclear energy has been a fascinating study in fear. Nuclear power in the United States has languished as the result of fears of meltdowns, waste disposal controversies and financial concerns. But our thirst for electricity has not stopped, instead, it has grown exponentially. The advent of computers, smart phones, multiple appliances in our homes and new commercial applications has drained our electric capacity and now threatens to seriously jeopardize our economic future.

The national debate on nuclear energy has been a fascinating study in fear.

Nuclear power in the United States has languished as the result of fears of meltdowns, waste disposal controversies and financial concerns. The public nightmare of an unmanageable catastrophe were stoked by events at Three Mile Island in this country, Chernobyl in Russia, and the airing of The China Syndrome in 1979.

Hopes for a future that offered abundant electricity at very affordable prices thanks to the dawn of the nuclear age were buried in a publicity campaign that erased the technology from consideration.

At the end of the 1970s, America had just over 100 nuclear power plants and construction of additional facilities was halted.

Our thirst for electricity has not stopped; instead, it has grown exponentially. The advent of computers, smart phones, multiple appliances in our homes and new commercial applications has drained our electric capacity and now threatens to seriously jeopardize our economic future.

We have become accustomed to “brown outs,” during the summers in our Western states.

At the same time, notable environmental groups have changed their tune on the dangers and value of nuclear energy. Even though the United States hasn’t built a new power plant in more than 40 years, the nation still gets more than 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy.

Those plants also generate about 75 percent of all clean energy produced in the U.S., far more than wind and solar combined. And unlike coal, the nation’s main source of electricity, nuclear plants don’t emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.

That reality is the primary force that is driving a new initiative by the Obama administration aimed at restarting the process of building nuclear power plants in this country.

Obama called for a “new generation of clean nuclear plants” in his State of the Union address last month and is backing it up with $8.3 billion in conditional loan guarantees to a power company consortium in Georgia and more dollars in his proposed 2011 budget for nuclear energy.

Without nuclear power, a national clean-energy policy is largely window dressing. The opportunity is here to show that the United States can build clean, safe and efficient nuclear plants.